AI Evidence in Texas Courts: What the Proposed Federal Rule 707 Means for Your Case
Artificial intelligence increasingly generates evidence offered in litigation—facial recognition identifying suspects, algorithms calculating damages, machine learning models predicting outcomes. But as AI moves from novelty to courtroom staple, fundamental questions arise: How do courts evaluate AI-generated evidence? What standards should apply? And how might proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 change the landscape?
The Current Problem: AI Evidence Without a Framework
Traditional expert testimony follows established rules. Under Daubert and its Texas equivalent, judges act as gatekeepers, ensuring expert opinions are based on reliable methodology. But what happens when the “expert” is an algorithm?
Currently, courts struggle with this question. Some treat AI output as regular evidence, requiring only authentication. Others apply expert witness standards to the humans who operate AI systems. Still others have developed ad hoc approaches that vary by jurisdiction and judge.
This inconsistency creates problems for litigants. The same AI evidence might be admitted freely in one courtroom and excluded entirely in another.
Proposed Federal Rule 707: A New Standard
The Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules has approved a proposed new Federal Rule of Evidence 707, specifically addressing machine-generated evidence. If adopted, this rule would subject AI-generated evidence to reliability gatekeeping similar to expert testimony under Rule 702.
Key aspects of proposed Rule 707:
Reliability requirement: AI evidence must meet baseline reliability standards before admission
Methodology disclosure: Parties must provide information about how AI systems generate their outputs
Judicial gatekeeping: Judges evaluate AI reliability before the evidence reaches the jury
Application scope: The rule would apply when AI output is offered without a human expert adopting and explaining it
What This Means in Texas
While Rule 707 is a federal proposal, Texas courts often follow federal evidentiary developments. The Texas Rules of Evidence already parallel the Federal Rules in many respects. If Rule 707 is adopted federally, Texas may follow with similar amendments.
Even before formal adoption, Texas courts are already grappling with AI evidence questions. Recent amendments to local rules in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas require disclosure when AI is used in legal filings—a sign that Texas federal courts are taking AI evidence seriously.
Practical Implications for Litigants
If You’re Offering AI Evidence
Prepare to defend the reliability of any AI system generating evidence you intend to offer:
Document the AI system’s methodology and validation
Understand the training data and potential limitations
Be ready to explain how the system works to the court
Consider pairing AI output with traditional expert testimony
If You’re Challenging AI Evidence
AI evidence is increasingly subject to challenge. Effective attacks may focus on:
Training data problems: Biased or unrepresentative training data undermines reliability
Black box concerns: Inability to explain how the AI reached its conclusion
Validation failures: Lack of testing in contexts similar to the case at hand
Error rates: Documented false positive or false negative rates
Changed conditions: AI systems that may produce different results over time as they learn
Texas Ethics Considerations
Texas lawyers must also consider their ethical obligations when working with AI evidence. The State Bar of Texas has emphasized that lawyers are responsible for work product regardless of whether AI contributed to it. Failing to verify AI-generated content can implicate rules governing competence, candor to the tribunal, and meritorious claims.
If you rely on AI to analyze evidence, calculate damages, or support your case theory, you must independently verify that the AI output is accurate and reliable.
Looking Ahead
AI evidence will only become more common. As the technology advances, so will efforts to admit AI-generated analysis, predictions, and identifications into evidence. Rule 707—whether adopted federally, adapted by Texas, or influential as persuasive authority—represents the beginning of a more structured approach to these questions.
Practitioners who understand both the technology and the emerging legal framework will be best positioned to offer or challenge AI evidence effectively.
Dealing with AI Evidence in Your Case? The Walters Firm stays at the forefront of technology and evidence law. Whether you need to admit AI-generated evidence or challenge its reliability, we can help navigate this evolving area. Contact us for a consultation.